Relationship between chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) redd densities and PHABSIM-predicted habitat in the Merced and Lower American rivers, California

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 570-577

  Gallagher, Sean P ^a   Gard, Mark F ^a  

^a U S FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FISHERY MANAGEMENT; HABITAT USE; MODEL TEST; PREDICTION; SALMONID;

CALIFORNIA; LOWER AMERICAN RIVER; MERCED RIVER; UNITED STATES;

ONCORHYNCHUS TSHAWYTSCHA;

EID: 0032811983     PISSN: 0706652X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/f98-198     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bovee, K.D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the instream flow incremental methodology. Instream Flow Inf. Pap. 12, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. FWS-OBS-82-26.
2. Bovee, K.D. 1994. Data collection procedures for the physical habitat simulation system. Natl. Biol. Serv., Fort Collins, Co.
3. Burner, CJ. 1951. Characteristics of spawning nests of Columbia River salmon. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 61, Vol. 52. pp. 97-110.
4. Castleberry, D.T., Cech, J.J., Erman, D.C., Hankin, D.H., Healy, M., Kondolf, G.M., Mangel, M., Mohr, M., Moyle, P.B., Nielsen, J., Speed, T.P., and Williams, J.G. 1996. Uncertainty and instream flow standards. Fisheries (Bethesda), 21: 20-21.
5. CDFG. 1994. Merced River fish flow requirement investigation phase 1: preliminary report on the relationship between instream flow and spawning habitat availability for fall-run chinook salmon in the Merced River, Merced County, California. California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division, Sacramento, Calif.
6. CDFG. 1996. Chinook salmon redd survey Lower American River fall 1995. California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division, Sacramento, Calif.
7. Conder, A.P., and Annear, T.C. 1987. Test of weighted usable area estimates derived from a PHABSIM model for instream flow studies on trout streams. N. Am. J. Fish. Manage. 7: 339-350.
8. DeVries, P. 1997. Riverine salmonid egg burial depths: review of published data and implications for scour studies. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 54: 1685-1698.
9. Gard, M.F. 1998. Technique for adjusting spawning depth habitat utilization curves for availability. Rivers, 6: 94-102.
10. Kondolf, G.M., Vick, J.C., and Ramirez, T.M. 1996. Salmon spawning habitat rehabilitation on the Merced River, California: an evaluation of project planning and performance. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 125: 899-912.
11. Leclerc, M., Boudreault, A., Bechara, J.A., and Corfa, G. 1995. Two-dimensional hydrodynamic modeling: a neglected tool in the instream flow incremental methodology. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 124: 645-662.
12. Mathur, D., Bason, W.H., Purdy, E.J., and Silver, C.A. 1985. A critique of the instream flow incremental methodology. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42: 825-831.
13. Milhous, R.T., Updike, M.A., and Schneider, D.M. 1989. Physical habitat simulation system reference manual - version II. Instream Inf. Pap. 26, U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 89(16).
14. Orth, D.J. 1987. Ecological considerations in the development and application of instream flow - habitat models. Regul. Rivers Res. Manage. 1: 171-181.
15. Orth, D.J., and Maughan, O.E. 1982. Evaluation of the incremental methodology for recommending instream flows for fishes. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 111: 413-445.
16. Platts, W.S., Megahan, W.F., and Minshall, G.W. 1983. Methods for evaluating stream, riparian, and biotic conditions. U.S. For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-138. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, Utah.
17. Reiser, D.W., Wesche, T.A., and Estes, C. 1989. Status of instream flow legislation and practices in North America. Fisheries (Bethesda), 14: 22-29.
18. Scott, D., and Shirvell, C.S. 1987. A critique of the instream flow incremental methodology and observations on flow determination in New Zealand. In Regulated streams: advances in ecology. Edited by J.F. Craig and J.B Kemper. Plenum Press, New York. pp. 27-43.
19. Shirvell, C.S. 1989. Ability of PHABSIM to predict chinook salmon spawning habitat. Regul. Rivers, 3: 277-289.
20. Stat Soft, Inc. 1995. STATISTICA for Windows. Stat Soft, Inc., Tulsa, Okla.
21. Trihey, E.W., and Wegner, D.L. 1981. Field data collection procedures for use with the physical habitat simulation system of the Instream Flow Group. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natl. Ecol. Res. Center, Fort Collins, Co.
22. USFWS. 1996. Identification of the instream flow requirements for steelhead and fall-run chinook salmon spawning in the Lower American River, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, Calif.
23. USFWS. 1997. Identification of the instream flow requirements for fall-run chinook salmon spawning in the Merced River, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, Calif.
24. Vaux, W.G. 1968. Intergravel flow and interchange of water in a stream bed. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Fish. Bull. 3. pp. 479-489.
25. Vyverberg, K., Snider, B., and Titus, R.G. 1996. Lower American River chinook salmon spawning habitat evaluation, October 1994. California Department of Fish and Game, Environmental Services Division, Sacramento, Calif.